Hello Frank
I have a client who is considering the NS 600 over a 940 Cluster ...
I know multiple clients that also tested both systems. Let them try it themselve and they will be more concerned in the end. :-)
Or to fasten the decision: Take a look at http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/sfs97r1.html and the included links explaining the HW-Structure and response times of the NAS-Servers.
Network Appliance, Inc. FAS940c Failover Cluster 2 TCP 33340 1.03 HTML http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2002q4/sfs97r1-20020916-00102.html Text http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2002q4/sfs97r1-20020916-00102.asc PS http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2002q4/sfs97r1-20020916-00102.ps
EMC Corp. Celerra NS600 Failover Cluster (1FS, primary/sec 2 TCP 25656 2.05 HTML http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q2/sfs97r1-20030415-00145.html Text http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q2/sfs97r1-20030415-00145.asc PS http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q2/sfs97r1-20030415-00145.ps EMC Corp. Celerra NS600 cluster (2FS, primary/primary, 4GB 4 TCP 38459 3.94 HTML http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q1/sfs97r1-20030203-00125.html Text http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q1/sfs97r1-20030203-00125.asc PS http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/res2003q1/sfs97r1-20030203-00125.ps
FAS640c with an overall 1.03 msec response time :-) against 2.05 or 3.94 msec at the almost same rate of io-operations per second on the NS600 ... :-(
Smile & Regards Dirk